Cassidy doesn't link to the Ryan statement, which — I found on my own — is part of the video that made the rounds the other day, the one that supposedly showed Ryan being "testy." (We talked about it here.) Anyway, let me put the "good discipline" and "character" remark in context. Ryan was asked the question "Does the country have a gun problem?" Ryan took the position that the problem is crime, not guns, and that we already have enough "good, strong gun laws," which we ought to enforce better.

But the best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity to the inner cities, is to help people get out of poverty in the inner cities, is to help teach people good discipline, good character. That is civil society, that's what charities and civic groups and churches do to help one another, make sure they realize the value in one another.

What you don’t often hear spoken (out loud, anyway) is that the real problem with gun violence in America is the “character” and “discipline” of people in the “inner cities,” a very specific delineation from other city folk...

Apparently, crime in our cities has nothing to do with poverty, and systemic failures, fueled by generations of institutionalized racism, but with the character of those people. So says Paul Ryan, and so says Mitt Romney. If you’re poor, it’s because your culture is inferior.

Ryan’s assessment of “inner city” people is of a piece with the not-at-all subtle (and even out-and-proud overt) attitudes of the leading lights in the Republican Party, best exemplified by racism decoder-ring Newt Gingrich, who helpfully singled out black people as the Food Stamp-satisfied people we already knew they were talking about, and who echoed Ryan’s chatter about the low character of the inner city denizens who “have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.”

We already knew who the “those people” Romney and Ryan were talking about were, but thanks for the hint, all the same.

We can’t expect them to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.

Unlike Ryan, who looked to "civil society... what charities and civic groups and churches do to help one another," Obama thought there should be federal government programs to teach poor (black?) people to "act appropriately." The difference between conservatives and liberals is about how to solve what they are perceiving as a problem. Pointing out that there's a problem is a sensitive matter, so sensitive it might be better not to point it out at all, as Jesse Jackson's famous open-mike pushback showed.

Will Biden "surely take it to Ryan" on this issue? He might, but it's treacherous. Ryan should be prepared with something elegant to say, but I predict it won't come up because Biden's the one who's gaffe prone, and you don't want to make a gaffe about race.

Since the Democratic Party is committed to the idea that fathers are of little important, i.e. their obsessive support of abortion and feminism, they must turn a blind eye to the repercussions of fatherlessness.

The Democratic Party has succeeded in enslaving blacks to the addictions of welfare and quotas. Blacks vote as a block for ever increasing levels of welfare and quotas.

The Democratic Party is committed to subsidizing a lack of discipline and poor character.

Parenting More Important Than Schools to Academic Achievement, Study Finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121010112540.htm

"Specifically, the researchers looked at how "family social capital" and "school social capital" pertained to academic achievement. Family social capital can essentially be described as the bonds between parents and children, such as trust, open lines of communication and active engagement in a child's academic life. School social capital captures a school's ability to serve as a positive environment for learning, including measures such as student involvement in extracurricular activities, teacher morale and the ability of teachers to address the needs of individual students.The researchers found that students with high levels of family social capital and low levels of school social capital performed better academically than students with high levels of school social capital but low family social capital. "In other words, while both school and family involvement are important, the role of family involvement is stronger when it comes to academic success," Parcel says."

Not everything can be solved with a government program.

Family values matter to children, even if we are repelled at the idea. Poverty is caused by a factor of economic instability, economic instability stems from social instability of one parent not in the child's life. Even if both parents are involved, if each parent has their 'own household' more time and resources are devoted to each home and not the child.

I hate to sound preachy, but even if we came from a divorce family or parents that were never married or in a situation as a parent that we are no co-residing with the other parent we know it affects a child.

It isn't about shame, but recognition. Not every couple should stay together, but we can't survive at these rates either as a society.

"Apparently, crime in our cities has nothing to do with poverty, and systemic failures, fueled by generations of institutionalized racism, but with the character of those people."

-- I know black people who grew up poor and suffered racial discrimination who are not criminals. So, uh, yeah. Character matters more than outside pressures. Truly good people won't murder you, no matter how much of a dick you are, while truly nasty people don't require much of a reason to be mean.

Remember when we were supposed to judge people "BY THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER" not by the "COLOR OF THEIR SKIN?"

Christopher is wrong about attributing crime to "poverty, and systemic failures, fueled by generations of institutionalized racism". That is a symptom which intersects partially with another symptom, crime. The problem is sabotaged character development that follows directly from the welfare system in this country, as well as a civil rights movement which denies individual dignity and responsibility. It is caused by involuntary exploitation to promote individual welfare, which is the source for progressive corruption of both the intended beneficiaries as well as the provider. It is caused by the marginalization and breakdown of the first level of social organization, the family. It is caused by the devaluation of human life through the normalization of involuntary exploitation, denigration of individual dignity, and dysfunctional behaviors.

Ryan is right and Christopher is wrong. Ryan suggests that rehabilitation and charity is the solution, while Christopher suggests that dependence and welfare (i.e. involuntary exploitation) is the solution. Ryan's solution promotes character development, while Christopher's solution addresses symptoms in perpetuity. In fact, that is where the so-called civil and human rights campaigns often fail. The address symptoms rather than causes. The denigrate individual dignity to enforce compliance. They are a principal cause of corruption and perpetuation of prejudice in our world.

What's horrible is to imagine everyone who is poor is teetering on the edge of becoming a criminal. That's what Christopher and this other author are doing. How demeaning to poor people!

The truth is, the inner city poor too often have to live among those who do not have character, have not been taught character. It is the inner city poor who are the victims of these people.Why would the good people of the inner city, whose lives are made much harder by criminals, be offended that Paul Ryan wants groups to intervene in lives before these people become criminals?

Bill Cosby's been talking to black people about the same thing for years.

Of course, the Lefties have denounced him, too.

PS One of the black nurses with whom The Blonde worked said she refused to live in a black neighborhood because she didn't want to raise her kids in the middle of the "don't drop a dime on a brother" culture.

God, this election has turned you into an idiot. This was a "gaffe about race" because nobody asked Ryan about it.

The answer to "Does the country have a gun problem?" is to say "the problem is crime, not guns, and that we already have enough 'good, strong gun laws,' which we ought to enforce better. But the best thing to help prevent violent crime is to bring opportunity to the cities, is to help people get out of poverty, is to help teach people. That is civil society, that's what charities and civic groups and churches do to help one another, make sure they realize the value in one another."

Why he drifted into talking about "inner city" anything is anybody's guess, and could be considered legitimately suspicious,...

OK. So think about the electoral implications of doing so -- who would this line of attack against Romney-Ryan appeal to and what does it imply about how you see the election? Ryan (like the 2007 Obama) was starting from a perspective that takes as a given middle-class values of thrift, industriousness and personal responsibility. Cassidy and his side suggest that the better starting point is to emphasize "poverty, and systemic failures, fueled by generations of institutionalized racism." I think the Cassidy way of framing the discussion is typical lefty stuff, and will only resonate with those who subscribe to that view already. Ryan's way of framing the discussion appeals (IMO) to classic middle-of-the-roaders, because they put a high value on thrift, work and responsibility, and believe that the rewards of life will flow to those who live by those values.

Cassdiy's frame makes sense if you think of the election as a 'base against base' event, where the objective is to motivate your own team to turn out rather than to convert the small group of middle/moderates. The Ryan approach embodies the opposite electoral logic.

I think Biden will try to use a race-based line of attack against Ryan tonight, but I think it will more likely be framed around the '47%' comment rather than any discussion about "poverty, and systemic failures, fueled by generations of institutionalized racism."

One of the elementary schools my kids went to had very little racial diversity, but lots of socioeconomic diversity. There was one group of kids who lived in a pocket of the town with much lower income and much higher crime. They were all white, some people might say a pocket of hillbillies the school district had grown around.

We had a mentoring program at the school to help all of the kids, but really to target the kids who had difficult family situations and were more prone to falling into crime and away from education.It had nothing to do with race, but was very much geared toward encouraging kids to give themselves all the opportunity they good by making strong and difficult choices.

It was amazing, really, to see how third graders respond to an adult who simply displays some positive interest in them.

The Left in America is just as corrupt as the Left in the Soviet Union.

No. That's not quite true. The Left in America is more degenerate. Not only do they normalize involuntary exploitation and deny individual dignity, but they are also willing to normalize behaviors which constitute evolutionary dysfunction.

The Left preys on Americans through the exploitation of a selective history, science, and reality. They advance their political, economic, and social standing through appeals to opportunists, exploitation of the vulnerable, and emotional extortion of individuals with goodwill.

The American Left is arguably worse than the communists in the "Evil Empire." At least the communists did not maintain a pretense to obfuscate their personal ambitions.

"The difference between conservatives and liberals is about how to solve what they are perceiving as a problem. Pointing out that there's a problem is a sensitive matter, so sensitive it might be better not to point it out at all..."

Wait, what...?

Maybe I misunderstand your point. Are you saying there are matters so sensitive in a free society that they cannot be discussed?

The plight of the inner city poor, whatever their color, is something worth discussing I should think and those addressing it should be prepared to refute the lazy and disingenuous attempts to shut down that discussion with accusations of racism or insensitivity.

Two thoughts:

1) Don't ever have children if you think there are subjects "too sensitive" to discuss. Life is hard...and there are lots of things that are hard to talk about but must be talked about nonetheless;2) I think the topic raises a point about where progressives and conservatives are coming from: the former from a sense of sympathy, the latter from a sense of compassion. The first is based on power--Progressives know what's best for you and are happy to impose it, the other on charity--Conservatives (at least the ones I know) realize their responsibility to help those who need it, but won't ignore the need for personal responsibility that goes hand-in-hand with climbing life's ladder.

The Left in America is more degenerate. Not only do they normalize involuntary exploitation and deny individual dignity, but they are also willing to normalize behaviors which constitute evolutionary dysfunction.

I like Steve Sailer's argument better.

Issues like abortion, drugs, gay marriage and feminism have far different meanings for the white upper class than they do for lower class whites and blacks.

As has been reported frequently, marriage and stable families still prevail for educated upper and upper-middle class whites. They talk the liberal BS and ignore it in their daily lives.

The unintended consequence of the destruction of tradition has been the devastating impact that liberal ideology has had on the lower class. They actually take the Oprah bullshit seriously.

The poor and ignorant need tradition, family and religion in order to ascend to the middle class.

Incredibly important qualities for success. I'd put them in that order.

Walk thru a neighborhood like Ovr the Rhine in Cincinnati, if you date, and you'll have no trouble predicting the future job prospects for many of the people you see. Likewise, site outside of a convenient store in many rural areas and small towns and you can make the same predictions.

Liberal scream to drown out the truth. Their ideas, their programs, their vision of the world are massive failures. No surprise here, either, as they ignore human nature and basic psychology.

Only a liberal could complain there is something wrong with wanting people to develop good discipline and good character.

AprilApple said...Once again, the collective left see racism behind every corner. Yet the left, and their community organizer president, have done NOTHING to help inner city kids.NOTHING.

And that alone is the most tragically racist thing of all. Because in their hearts, liberals believe that black people are incapable of improving themselves by themselves. African Americans will always be the property of the left.

No, if you are a criminal it's because your culture is inferior. There are plenty of hardworking, honest poor people.

(On a somewhat related note, I was watching bits and pieces of the X Factor last night, and this one girl really got to me. She said she was from Flint, MI and that people there have no hope. They get out only through jail or death. Just dreadfully sad.)

Put it to the test: Ride the city buses just before and after school hours. You will see "inferior" culture and bad manners in person. You will, by looking out the windows, see many Black youths just hanging around. If you do the same in the Barrio, it will be very different.

I myself have a different question...why should I go to the trouble and work to understand someone who will twist words and edit tape to promote their agenda over mine?

What do I benefit from it? Why should I not dismiss those who twist words as untrustworthy and beneath my real involvement? For no matter what I say, they will misconstrue, edit, twist, and out right lie about what is going on.

This is what makes me most mad about DC, which seems populated by these very people, on both sides of the aisle. The only reason, and this is a fact, the only reason I vote Republican is that they have 1 or 2 guys that actually are trying to solve the problems of the country. I see no one on the Democratic side beyond trying to keep power for democrats. I know there have to be some somewhere...maybe Heath Shuler, a few of the bluedogs, but they are being thrown out of power by the constituent that is even more conservative than they.

Regardless, with the democrats going ful retard communist, it will be another decade before they win a majority again. They'll have to train up another generation of idiots in the public schools. The last group they had has actually been out in the real world for a few years and seen how it really works.

I look at people like Garage. He can't be happy with Zero, but feels compelled to defend hin at all cost because Zero is "their guy". But I know Garage has to be somewhat reasonable, he hold a job. He owns a dog...that right there is enough of an endorsement. If it were just GM, and say CHIP S, or one of the smarter conservatives on here(I omit myself for good reason), they could work out compromises on just about everything.

But alas, that will not be the case as long as the moonbats of the left fly free around the belfry of the democratic party.

Because that's where the vast majority of gun violence occurs. See the current state of affairs in South Chicago.

The difference between you and me, Crack, is that I had a dedicated, competent father.

Yeah, a dedicated, competent father who just started talking about black people - out of the blue - when asked about guns and nothing more. A dedicated, competent father who could've talked about the joys of collecting, hunting, sport shooting - anything - but is stuck on those with darker skin. A dedicated, competent father who teaches his kids to pull any answer out of their ass to rationalize this fantasy flight into darkness ("Because that's where the vast majority of gun violence occurs") when there was no good reason for it ever happening

You must think I'm as big a fool as you've become, even with a dedicated, competent father.

You must think I'm as big a fool as you've become, even with a dedicated, competent father.

What my father gave me, Crack, is not the assurance that I have the correct political ideas. That amounts to bullshit. Your obsessive belief that this is the correct area to focus your energies is mistaken.

My father gave me the tools to succeed in the educational system and to advance in jobs.

The correct answer to the question "Does the country have a gun problem?" is "no". If you want to read the question further, it could be rephrased as "Are we too in love with guns?"

Black people should never have come into it.

Which explains why over half the inmates in prison are black males.

No, you incompetent mess of a man, GETTING CAUGHT explains why over half the inmates in prison are black males. I live out here with the rest of you, remember? White people commit waaay more crime, it's just done differently - in homes, etc. - which makes sense considering they're the majority population.

Your dedicated, competent father sure didn't seem to do you any favors in The Thinking Dept., compared to the incompetent whose blood I carry.

Kick 80% of the adults on welfare off the welfare rolls and the problems will solve themselves quickly. When push comes to shove, those kicked off the welfare rolls won't starve, they will find the way to survive and that includes instantly acquiring a work ethic. As for single mothers, cut them off after the first kid and watch them become far more selective with whom they have their next kid with.

I would have to say that although I had great, hardworking, upstanding parents, I got much of my moral character from movies, TV, and later talk radio. I think most people do get theirs from movies, TV and books. Basically stories, real or fictional. You rarely see your parents in challenging moral dilemmas that they successfully resolve. Movies, and TV are mostly about that, or at least were. Many hours were spent watching dramas that show how the courageous, the honest, the righteous prevail.

I think this is where we learn it. I learned the value of hard work and having fun from my parents, but they just never had much opportunity to demonstrate overcoming really challenging situations. They just lived life with normal challenges, of money, love and relationships which they did provide good examples on how to handle.

I see a problem here with stories today often championing bad behavior, or at least making it look real attractive.

White people such as Soros and Kaiser made the black president give them taxpayers' money which could be used to help inner cities kids and other poor folks to a better life.

Yet, you support the president because he is black.

Soros' Petrobra got $2 billion of your money to drill oil off the coast of Brazil, Kaiser got $535 million of your money to close down Solyndra sending its workers to the unemployment line and millions of bonuses to its management...

Sure they did. I don't play the "code word" game, but nobody's fooled by the phrase "inner cities."

Do we have a crime problem? We certainly have more crime in parts of US cities than in other world cities in which I've lived.What's happening in Chicago is a travesty.

No doubt, but when asked about "the country," I don't naturally start specifically separating out anybody to talk about anybody. When I'm asked about "a gun problem" I don't focus on crime, but the topic asked - guns - which is an issue unto itself. I've told you guys, many times, you've got a problem:

Um, ST, I have a father. Knew him well, from the age of 13, and, before that, he sat in the car down the block from my foster home and watched me play with my friends, not interfering, out of concern for disrupting my life as he'd set it up, doing the best he could in post-WWII America. I loved him dearly, and know he did the best he could under what can only be called "trying circumstances."

I was unaware that no white people or hispanic people or asian people live in the inner cities. Any of them.

But you insist that it's impossible to speak of these people without actually meaning "black people", so clearly they don't exist.

I would've thought that you, of all people, Crack, would know to avoid Newspeak.

Where did I "insist that it's impossible to speak of these people without actually meaning 'black people'"? Are you going to tell me that 30 years of political convention has been wiped away, merely because it's Paul Ryan speaking?

And, while you say I'm totally off-base, look at the very first comment on this thread - by ST, of course:

The 70% illegitimacy rate in the black community is all you need to know.

Crack is right on this. When asked about guns, you respond about guns. If the questioner wants to imply that guns equal crime, make him or her actually say so. You shouldn't buy into the unstated premise that guns rather than crime are the problem.

How will Biden use Ryan's statement against Ryan. Will he flatout call Ryan a racist? The only way that would work is if Ryan goes all timid and pleads "No no no, I'm not a racist and here's why." But it's highly unlikely that Ryan will go that wimpout route. And if he doesn't, if he rather throws Biden's accusation back in Biden's face and talks about the bigotry of low expectations...well then, Biden's "that's racisss" ploy could backfire on him, bigtime.

Ryan points out the behavior of the individuals in question demonstrates a lack of character and discipline. Cassidy turns that into a criticism of inherent characteristics.

Liberals believe in all sorts of intrinsic, inherent, genetic attributes. It is a tenet of grievance/identity politics. Which is why they are racists, and why eugenics has always been so attractive to the left, and why they think you need govt coercion to get anything done.

I figured it was a lie from the beginning in the name of national security - or to downplay the success of the attacks to take away any victory in the media in the same way the terrorists would insist Osama bin Laden is still alive - that kind of thing.

Ryan was asked a question about "a gun problem" which is another way of asking about gun control in relation to violent crime. Where does the majority of gun-related violence happen?

Now you've taken the leap of logic as well:

It's one thing to say a question about "a gun problem" is another way of asking about gun control, I'll buy that, but to then continue with "in relation to violent crime" is mere conjecture - it could've been someone concerned about hunting, militia culture, the gun fetish films of John Woo.

Face it:

Paul Ryan fucked up - not badly in my estimation - and especially not as badly as those choosing to defend him.

The Right is desperate, just as the Left is, and both sides need to get a grip,...

Perhaps Ryan really cares about the kids and families who are harmed by gun violence in the inner city. We can pretend all day that "gun violence" is a suburban problem, but it isn't.

Inner cities are a mess with little economic opportunity, and the constant threat your child could be shot on his way to school. It isn't right to let kids grow up like that, but Obama seems to think doubling down on the "same failed policies" will help, to the extent that he gives a crap.

People in inner cities won't be helped until liberals stop stopping any honest conversation with cries of RACIST!

The term "Tar Baby" has no relation to race, and it's use as representing a self-imposed intractable problem has roots going way back including in Africa. All around the world the idea is understood this way. Thomas's use of it was spot on. If we can't use the same language with people of all races, then we are not equal.

The idea of it being a racial slur is recent and born of ignorance and desperation. Yes, that is ugly.

Apparently, crime in our cities has nothing to do with poverty, and systemic failures, fueled by generations of institutionalized racism, but with the character of those people. So says Paul Ryan, and so says Mitt Romney. If you’re poor, it’s because your culture is inferior.

Interestingly, "a failed culture" (even if that culture was formed to some extent by historical racism ... as well as the effects of well-intended but foolish Progressive policy) does explain both sets of stuck-in-poverty people, black and white.

And it also explains why black immigrants do so much better, even when they move to the same inner cities. And why Hispanics don't seem to be quite in the same "trap".

I prefer the hypothesis that has better explanatory power, for obvious Scientific reasons.

Exactly. We cannot attribute momentary or permanent failure to an individual's incidental features and environment alone. We cannot address integration when our policies engender the manufacture and preservation of prejudice. We cannot address causes as long as treating symptoms is perpetually profitable to advance the political, economic, and social standing of individuals and cooperatives.

We need to replace welfare policies with rehabilitation policies, which would ideally be managed locally and funded through voluntary (i.e. charitable) exploitation. We need to control the progress of corruption in our communities and nation. We need to expose politicians and others who promise instant gratification which are impossible to fulfill without also sponsoring corruption.

We cannot afford a "Tutsi slaughter Hutu slaughter Tutsi" cycle of redistributive and retributive change. We also cannot afford lesser forms of corruption which are progressive and terminal.

Ryan's preachiness undermined a decent message about the value of charities and civic groups because he pandered for a conservative audience far from the inner cities, and added nothing but stereotypes and fear to the campaign.

Look at the little Emcee go! First there's the racism of assuming that "inner city" means "black." Did the little Emcee forget that the inner cities have been going Latino demographically for the last 30 years?

The little Emcee's mind just immediately jumps to a conclusion - based on the color of his little Emcee skin!

And then there's his great dad that sat down the street - I'm being serious folks - and watched him play, and wasn't in his life other than that until the little Emcee was 13, because he was such a great father! He had plans, you know, and he was undoubtedly ten times a better father and man than yours, because the little Emcee doesn't like you. His dad taught him to say stupid shit in an attempt to insult people. Undoubtedly his paps saw the little Emcee's massive inferiority complex and taught him to compensate by being a jester wherever he went, to give people better than him amusement by yelling at them and boasting about himself.

The little Emcee's father was truly a great man, and produced such a great clown for us.

The term "Tar Baby" has no relation to race, and it's use as representing a self-imposed intractable problem has roots going way back including in Africa. All around the world the idea is understood this way. Thomas's use of it was spot on. If we can't use the same language with people of all races, then we are not equal.

I agree - you know that - except the problem here is Shouting Thomas himself. He's lately taken this nasty turn into racial demagoguery - fixated on black people - which I've called him on a few times, partially because it's wrong and partially because it's him. At this point, I don't doubt for a second that his use of "Tar Baby" wasn't innocent, as it's become par for the course.

Paul Ryan was just being stupid to turn the conversation in the direction he did - it was a gaffe, no biggie, learn to answer the question asked.

The elephant in the room. The reason 40+ years of educational interventions like Head Start have failed,the reason the minority illegitimacy rate is so high, the reason popular music in minority groups chooses a form of dress found among criminals (sagging pants) and objectifies women in pornographic doggerel poetry (rap). Yes, it's cultural all right, in spite of well scrubbed white liberals protestations.

AprilApple said...What did Martin Luther King Jr. Say about "Judging people by the content of their character?"

The left hate that MLK Jr. said it. How inconvenient. It goes against everything the left stand for: Grievance.

-------------------- No, the Left and black racists LOVE that conservatives have agreed to elevate Saint Martin, to a place as the greatest American Ever, perhaps 2nd only in Goodness to Jesus Christ - based on one line that whites see completely differently than the blacks and white class warriors do.

That gives them a chance to explain content of character realy means that blacks were stronger than their white oppressors because they had more character and soul - even as the color of their skin made the white devils who had the guns oppress and persecute them.

And weeks and weeks of indoctrination of kids in the Greatest American also gives them a chance to promote Kings socialist ideas like wealth redistribution, Kings's anti military pacifism. King's demand for racial quotas.And instruct blacks in racial resentment - if they have equal content of character then what explains different outcomes in society but WHITE PRIVILEGE ???

"Issues like abortion, drugs, gay marriage and feminism have far different meanings for the white upper class than they do for lower class whites and blacks."

Middle class progressive: high school diploma and college degree, home or condo ownership; if any kids, parental age at birth around 35; adequate to substantial income. Too enclosed in their bubble to make the connection between fecklessness and poverty; call sexual license "freedom".

Underclass (we have black, white, and Hispanic underclass in my neighborhood): no high school diploma, first baby at 16, kids by 3 or 4 dads. Dads don't know what a job is; women juggling jobs and trying to raise kids at the same time.

This is the result of what progressives call "freedom".

I've been a community volunteer for 30 years, helping kids deal with the misery of a dad who never shows up at all, or shows up plastered; whose mom's present boyfriend is in jail for dealing. Progressives, I am one of many wading into the hell your policies have caused, trying to clean up your mess. The least you could do is quit pouring gasoline onto the fire.

I couldn't say. I don't think his Uncle Remus stories are racist. They were rather sweet. But I was a kid and I was innocent of that stuff.

If Chandler was race-baiting somebody and then makes a "tar baby" remark, would I say something? Yes I would.

I get annoyed at "race." The whole concept is idiotic, unscientific, and reactionary. None of the assholes who talk about it can answer simple questions like, "how many races are there?" or "what are the races?" The whole construct falls apart the moment you attack it.

I just have no patience with somebody who uses statistics like a hammer on innocent people. It's idiotic and stupid.